Treeees!!!

[BubbuClinton]

Re: Treeees!!!

Observer, I have seen the sights. I will agree to disagree and share a beer with you. I have no Issue with DNA of all things on earth being similar. It almost looks like it was designed that way. Don't you think?

I can imagine Iraq having the heat. So does Texas. You just have to add a gallon of water per cubic inch or air. But they do have good air conditioners. Take care.

Bubbu

 

[Harte]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Observer\")</div>

Harte,

Your last post, last paragraph. Excellent.

I am not against gods, I think it is great people that need it can have a psychological crutch to make it through the day. Better than resorting to alcohol or drugs I am sure. What I am completely against is going back to 1820 with our life sciences. And people wonder why the US has a brain drain going on in regards to scientist leaving for greener (progressive) pastures.

Ah well....
[/b]

Observer,
Thank you for your kind words, but I think we disagree more than you know. Now, I'm no devout believer, but I stand firmly behind my idea that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. I do not believe that religion itself is a "psychological crutch," although I agree many people use it as such. I do not pretend to know the truth in these matters, I just am of the opinion that the scientific method must be used if one wishes to understand the physical universe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Observer\")</div>

Dmitri,

Another thing that I wonder about, what part of you being an animal, a hairless monkey frightens you? How can that fact negate the sheer wonder of our minds? Our existence? Why this need to feel special, and apart? Have you ever visited a zoo? Ever sat down on a bench and stared at a chimpanzee? Ever look one in the eyes? Ever look at their fingers, hands? Denial is a harsh mistress, isn't it. If you cannot see a relationship, well...what can I say. It is there in front of your eyes. Perhaps vanity and ego blind you?
[/b]

Here, you are misunderstanding Dmitri's position. (I'm sorry Dmitri for jumping in here before you had a chance to finish choking and start expostulating. )
It is Dmitri's position that all life originates in Panspermia- a version of ID that assumes intelligent interventions around the universe for the purpose of spreading life. Rounds of seeding of tailored dna-manipulating virus-like materials subsequent to the original seeding of life by some outside influence has changed the precursors of current species into what they are today. (Dmitri - I know that this is a very short and not entirely accurate version of your theory, but it serves my purpose presently.)
Thus Dmitri is not "frightened" by the idea of being an animal. He fully accepts this idea. You maintain that ID is primarily a creationist argument, and I agree that on the surface, intelligent design seems so. The idea is over-used by creationists because the only scientists creationists can use to bolster their ideas are ones that promote ID. But ID does not equate to creationism and creationism does not equate to religious fundamentalism.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Observer\")</div>

Bubba,

Evolution in a weak postion? Did you even look at any of those site I posted (You know, the ones written by scientist..people educated, trained in science. People who actually DO SCIENCE). You obviously did not, or if you did you put on some very dark shades.

[/b]

Ok, Observer, I believe Bubbu has done some research in the area (not as much as Dmitri, I think). Other than that I'm afraid there is little in Bubbu's philosophy that I can defend.

Harte

 

[Observer]

Re: Treeees!!!

I stand corrected on Dmitri. Panspermia? Interesting. (Dmitri, cometary? Intentional)

Please let me tone down my anti-religious rhetoric. I just re-read most of my posts, and it is a dis-service to all. The rational and calm back and forth gets the most across.

I agree that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. My personal Hero (Though he did not believe in QM) is Albert Einstein. A moral man and the possessor of a singular mind. He was also religious. "Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind". It is simply hard for me to comprehend beyond a very simplified definition of what a religious person is. I spend too much time with hard minded men and we all broadside each other to kill time at work. You would not believe the topics we covered downrange. (Actually, if you are a student of human boredom, you may very well have a distinct and most likely accurate idea).

Bubba, I don't drink alcohol, but I will raise my Coke to you and imagine the clinking glasses.

I disagree in some respects though regarding ID and Creationism. Creationism was indeed hijacked by fundamentalist. (Or more correctly, Creation Science...hard to put those two words together). ID is not science, it is philosophy. It cannot be disproved. Where is the science in that? It does not provide an answer for anything it attacks in the mainstream theory of evolution. Punching holes is fine, it is NECESSARY in regards to science progressing, but at least have something tangible that can explain observed evidence, so as to have something to fill those holes. ID is the brain child of the discovery institute. Look up who funds it, read up on those people. I stand by my point about ID and its proponents.

Aside from that, I look forward to meeting all of you in different forums on this site. I was primarily interested in one topic, but have found many other stimulating areas to toss around ideas about.

Thanks for the back and forth,

Jim

 

[Dmitri]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Observer\")</div>

Dmitri,
Another thing that I wonder about, what part of you being an animal, a hairless monkey frightens you? How can that fact negate the sheer wonder of our minds? Our existence? Why this need to feel special, and apart? Have you ever visited a zoo? Ever sat down on a bench and stared at a chimpanzee? Ever look one in the eyes? Ever look at their fingers, hands? Denial is a harsh mistress, isn't it. If you cannot see a relationship, well...what can I say. It is there in front of your eyes. Perhaps vanity and ego blind you?[/b]

Thanks for pointing out: my ego is eating me up and sucking my bone marrow.
The thing with a chimp and myself is that the similarity does not necessarily mean common ancestry. I used to be in zoology and have described new genera and species of insects, and have stared at many things indeed. Now I often stare at DNA. There is no room for the chance at work. If a chimp and myself have a common ancestor, this means to me this closest ancestor picked up a viral or another transposable DNA upgrade, which was specially designed in advances ET labs, as well as the rest of all life forms in the known Universe have been designed, maybe even in the future.

 

[Observer]

Re: Treeees!!!

As with ID, it is an intriguing speculation. How do you bolster that idea? (Wasn't RNA thought of as having been a virus at one time in the far past that our ancestors absorbed and made our own) (Dated a biologist, helped with her homework...may have watched too much ST: Next Generation at the same time ...most likely way off..should have googled it, decided to finish coke instead)


Jim

 

[Dmitri]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

This does not, however, invalidate the idea of evolution. The fact that Darwin was wrong in his specifics is not enough to throw out the idea of natural species variation. There is no other theory out there that does not presuppose some influence \"from beyond\" in one way or the other. [/b]

Harte,

The Darwinian theory is being taught in universities all over. It is the ultimate truth in Europe. If you subtract what Darwinism has as the random mutations and natural selection from the theory of evolution the remaining theory will be equal to zero. Punctuated equilibrium of Gould?s implies huge mutations. There is no way they can come about biochemically on their own. Besides, no one has seen a chicken with a cat?s tail in thousands of years, so how come we trick ourselves with five million years (less than 1000x as long) being able to do the magic. There is also this tree of life to the evolutionary theory, of course, the tree of common descent. Now, we do not have any intermediates, apart from Archaeopteryx, which may have been faked anyway. All insect families are already present in the Cretaceous, no intermediates. All we have handy and misleading is the apparent similarity of living forms. All buildings are also similar in that they have some concrete and other construction material in common. They do not multiply though, but if they were made to, would we say that skyscrapers were grandchildren of our yard huts that happened to grow taller? Newtonian physics in relation to QM is much better off than Darwinian nonsense to whatever else is there; and even ID or panspermia are not accepted.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Observer\")</div>

As with ID, it is an intriguing speculation. How do you bolster that idea? (Wasn't RNA thought of as having been a virus at one time in the far past that our ancestors absorbed and made our own) ... [/b]

Observer,

The RNA or DNA was absorbed all right. The thing is, these RNA and DNA did not come into being on its own, and neither did the simplest self-reproducing organism as a bacterium is, made of thousands of interrelated proteins in the meantime.

To bolster it is a bit long story. Shortly, discrete information cannot be created by random events + Hoyle and Wickramasinghe showed that interstellar clouds consist of enormous masses of frozen bacteria + natural origin scientists have not gotten anything better than slimy dirt in their test tubes in fifty years or so, and the smartest of them gave up long ago + astrobiology came into play recently with new discoveries + we ourselves are starting to learn how to engineer and manipulate information molecules and affect genomes, even correct some genetic abnormalities, so look at it in the perspective of a couple of million years from now, + there are lots and lots of bacteria and viruses around, most of which would not have survived more than a million years (because mutations can only destroy information, so all need upgrades or re-introduction, esp. those without sexual reproduction) + bacteria can survive at high temperatures and even in nuclear reactors (never on earth before recently) and they and viruses are perfectly fit for cosmic travel + a lot of viruses do look like genetic upgrades for many different species, including HIV and us, for example.

If you ask me about creation, I do not believe in such that leaves no room for questions. I do not believe that a lightning struck and animals ran around. If you reconcile creation with Darwinian nonsense, I do not believe in this either, because it is against the fact. I do not believe in fish changing into mammal on its own device. I believe in fact.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: Treeees!!!

I earnestly believed in evolution as it is taught, for many years. Then, I questioned the mechanisms and sort of rejected them when I was finishing college. I sat on Lamarckian ways for many years (they may work indeed, but would be supplementary only). Very recently, about the time I joined the thread ?The Creation of Man?, I started seriously questioning the concept of the common aWe sort of doing it already, but mostly unconsciously.

 

[Observer]

Re: Treeees!!!

Dmitri,


Interest speculation indeed.

My only question about your last two posts is regarding the bacteria in space.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe showed that interstellar clouds consist of enormous masses of frozen bacteria

Bacteria are living creatures. If anything, lifeform wise, had ever been discovered on another world or in space it would be in every textbook and astrobiologist would be publishing monthly in Nature. I see this nowhere (And I suscribe to Nature, Science, etc...)

Now let me surprise you, perhaps. I have read up about these two scientist and their theories. (Though it seems they are not very well accepted by the majority of the scientific community). I must say it is an interesting premise. One that many biologist say is possible, though they don't suscribe to the theory themselves. If it is possible, it belongs up there in my chest of things to ponder with my peers. I had not thought of panspermia since the 80's, when it was a very fringe belief. At that time I was delving into many different aspects of science, trying to understand the reasoning behind so many different views of how,what,when,why, and where. (Teenager, what can I say). I never looked at it again as it was really SF in my book. I see now I need to update my knowledge of the topic.

My only question regarding panspermia is that it still does not answer where the bacteria (or whatver may be there) came from. Where was the mother source. If it evolved naturally there, then why not here. If it can evolve naturally here..why need panspermia. Anyways, circular argument.

Jim

(I really need to get an English language spell checker on this)

 

[Dmitri]

Re: Treeees!!!

Jim,

Some reports and references are in Proceedings of SPIE Volume: 5555 @ http://bookstore.spie.org/index.cfm?fuseac...d=542773&coden=
There are some interesting publications in Astrobiology journal @ http://www.liebertonline.com/loi/ast
There are some scattered papers in Science and Nature like ASTROBIOLOGY: Looking for Life in Far Distant Places, Larry R. Nittler, Science 12 March 2004; 303: 1614; The Science of Astrobiology Takes Shape: Robert Irion, Science 28 April 2000; 288: 603-605. These journals are too conservative for this line.
Hoyle?s idea of interstellar bacteria is not accepted because physicists and astronomers did not care to admit that he is right saying that the spectrum fit is not coincidental and nothing else comes even close to the fit. Quite a few people in NASA Astrobiology groups agree, however.

As to how and where originally it happens, I would suggest Hoyle?s ?The Intelligent Universe?. He talks about undirected panspermia and time loops. I think panspermia is directed, to minimize the waste of resources. All life forms are being created in controlled lab environments of advanced civilizations, and the process does not have a beginning or end. Even laws of physics may be affected by advanced intelligence. As to Big Bang, it can be local only, and the question of the ultimate beginning may be incorrect. It just exists as a continuum, and intelligence modifies itself at different time-space localities. No DNA from soup, so to say, unless you cook it yourself.

Dmitri

 

[Dmitri]

Re: Treeees!!!

Both fundamental creationists and Darwinian evolutionists are trapped in tautology. The God did everything or the fittest survive. Both tautologies are correct, but this is what tautologies are: they do not explain a thing. Creationists at least imply morality. Darwinists reject that they imply fascism and pretend they seek scientific answers. The first kind of people usually does not need explanations because they do not care. The second think they know what is what but care still less, being instead lost among three pine-trees, as they say in Russian. I would say two: Natural selection (Pinus tautologicus variation dogmaticus, Dmitri, New Species and Variation) and Mutation (Pinus idioticus, Dmitri, New Species, here designated, but not existent or recommended as a healthy improvement).